170 
SYDNEY J. UICKSOX AND J. 'J'. WAUSWOETH. 
Hi-idgewater canal and from Birmingliam, and we have dis- 
discovered that they are epizoic Acinetarians belonging to the 
species U r n n 1 a e p i s t y 1 i d i s . 
The possibility that the bodies described and figured by 
Kent are different from those we have observed has of course 
occuri’ed to us. It is, however, very improbable that external 
buds could be formed in the position of these bodies for the 
following- reasons : 
In the formation of a bud it would be necessary for the 
meganucleus to take part. The meganucleus of Deudrosoma, 
however, does not extend as far as ttie extremity of the 
branches, and could not possibly take part in the formation of 
buds in the position assigned to the “ external buds ” by 
8aville Kent. 
"NVe have examined a great number of specimens ofpendro- 
soma from the two localities, obtained at different seasons of 
the year and in varying phases of activity, but we have never 
seen any reproductive bodies of the form and in the position 
assigned to the “ external buds”; butUrnula epistylidis 
does occur in this position in a large majority of the specimens 
examined, and frequently in considerable numbers. 
On Uknula Epistylidis. 
This interesting species was first described by Claparede 
and Lachmann (5). It is mentioned in their first volume 
(1858-9), but the reproduction is more fully described in the 
second volume (1860-61). It was found on the stalk of an 
Epistylis. Owing to the appearance of a branching 
tentacle in one of their specimens these authors regarded 
Urnula as a Khizopod and placed it next to the genus 
Eugl}'pha in the family Actinophryina. 
Engelmann (12) and subsequent authors have, howev-er, 
agreed that it is an Acinetarian, and Butschli places it in the 
family Urnulina with the genera Bhynceta and Acine- 
topsis — an arrangement that is followed by Sand. 
Only one species has been described — U rn ula epistylidis 
